Huge rewards paid to whistleblowers reporting IRS tax fraud in the amount of $2 million dollars or more. Have an attorney file your tax fraud claim with the IRS and negotiate the amount of your reward. For more information please visit our newsfeed sponsor www.irsrewards.com or call toll free 1-888-482-6825.

Whatever You Like - T.I

Solo - Iyaz

Day 'N' Nite - Kid Cudi

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, announced today the sentencing of a Liverpool man on tax charges.

Marc Zicaro, 38, had pled guilty on March 15, 2011 to being an accessory after the fact of the making of a false income tax return. The charge relates to Zicaro’s involvement in a fraud perpetrated by Donald Geiss, Jr. from 2001 through 2007. Geiss was employed as the director of health and safety at Intertek, located in Cortland, New York. Geiss submitted vouchers to Intertek for payment on behalf of others who were identified as a medical doctor and certified industrial hygienists. In the case of Marc Zicaro, he was represented to be a medical doctor in the vouchers submitted to Intertek by Geiss. These vouchers sought payment for work that was never done. In fact, Zicaro is not a medical doctor. When Geiss obtained the checks in payment of the fraudulent vouchers, he forged the endorsements and converted most of the proceeds to his own use.

During 2005, Geiss received Intertek checks payable to Marc Zicaro, M.D., in the total amount of $152,000. Geiss endorsed these checks and kept the proceeds. Geiss did not report this income on his 2005 tax return. In July 2007, Marc Zicaro received a notice from the IRS concerning the fact that Intertek had reported a payment of $152,000 to Zicaro that did not appear on Zicaro’s 2005 tax return. In August 2007, after consulting with Geiss, Zicaro responded to the IRS in a signed written statement. The statement was false in that Zicaro stated that he notified Intertek that he did not receive the $152,000 payment in 2005, when in fact Zicaro did not so notify Intertek. The statement was also false in that Zicaro stated Intertek issued a corrected 1099 which Zicaro enclosed in the correspondence to the IRS. This was false also in that Intertek did not issue the “corrected” 1099, and in fact Intertek knew nothing about it. Through this conduct, Zicaro assisted Geiss by hindering and preventing the IRS from the detection of Geiss’ criminal conduct in the fact that Geiss’ 2005 income tax return was false and fraudulent.

No comments:

NOTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Notification:

The following information is provided exclusively for notifying the service provider that your copyrighted material may have been infringed. Written notification must be submitted to the following Service Provider and Designated Agent.

To be effective, the Notification must include the following: 1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed; 2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site; 3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material; 4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the Complaining Party, such as an address, telephone number, and if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted; 5. A statement that the Complaining Party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and 6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the Complaining Party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Upon receipt of the written Notification containing the information as outlined in 1 through 6 above: 1. Service Provider shall remove or disable access to the material that is alleged to be infringing; 2. Service Provider shall forward the written notification to such alleged infringer ("Subscriber"); 3. Service Provider shall take reasonable steps to promptly notify the Subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.

Counter Notification:

To be effective, a Counter Notification must be a written communication provided to the Service Provider's Designated Agent that includes substantially the following: 1. A physical or electronic signature of the Subscriber; 2. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled; 3. A statement under penalty of perjury that the Subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled; 4. The Subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the Subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the Subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the Service Provider may be found, and that the Subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification or an agent of such person

Upon receipt of a Counter Notification containing the information as outlined in 1 through 4 above: 1. Service Provider shall promptly provide the Complaining Party with a copy of the Counter Notification; 2. Service Provider shall inform the Complaining Party that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it within ten (10) business days; 3. Service Provider shall replace the removed material or cease disabling access to the material within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days following receipt of the Counter Notification, provided Service Provider's Designated Agent has not received notice from the Complaining Party that an action has been filed seeking a court order to restrain Subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on Service Provider's network or system.